Prince George

I really fail to understand the concern about the photographs of children.

Do people really want to control the thoughts of people who, remotely, view such images?

And paedophilia and pederasty are no more prevalent now than they ever were, yet some children are never given any kind of freedom as a result of their parents' fears.

Plain daft.

GC's school have a problem with parents not wanting DC in photographs. GD1's class photo is always missing half a dozen children and they have to remove those children from plays before photo is taken.

I would n't put my grandsons' pics up on here. But only because I could be recognised through them. Shame really. They are gorgeous.

Actually my son in law thinks the same way as Galen' s daughter. I don't think it makes any sense though. Everyone sees children all the time in the street. What difference can a photo make. Obviously fully clothed!

In all the photos I have seen of George, he is fully dressed.

William and Harry live in homes owned by the country, we pay for these properties, we paid millions for William to move unto his new home at KP, we pay for their security and we way for all their royal duties . Charles gets his money from the Duchy of Cornwall which is realy means he is similar to a rent collector but he keeps the rent .

I think this couple have every right to keep their child out of the public eye

I would not be putting pictures out of my D/C , never know who is viewing IMO !!
I might add "gently", why are there 2 threads on George ?

Sadly, I agree with Galen about exposing babies/infants/childen to "the sort of pedophiliac viewers" her daughter worries about.

Many years ago, when visiting a secure psychiatric ward I was shocked to find many of the men had decorated their personal area with photographs of children in underwear, naked etc, from mother care catalogues. This was before the advent of the internet, where it's possible to do all manner of things with photographs. Yuk. I don't see why the fact the royals are public figures should mean they have no choice about the extent of exposure their babies get.

I still don't see why their son should be exposed to the sort of paedophiliac viewers my darling daughter is worried about!
Personally I think she's a bit obsessive about it
She posts on her own profile that only 'friends' can see!
I would love to be able to post them on my profile that only ' friends' can see!
But she says that as I have not met them all personally, she doesn't want me to!
It does take away a lot of the fun of being a gran!

Because they are public figures – presumably your daughter isn't.

My DARLING DAUGHTER won't allow pictures of my DGDs to be posted publically so why should the royals have to?

overthehill I think New Zealand is paying for the visit. N.b. The Queen is Head of State here too.

Well said Niggly

I think you will find that both Prince William and Prince Harry are not on the civil list and therefore do not get any income from the state. Their income is provided by their own funds (their mother left each of them a considerable fortune) their service pay and an income provided by their father from funds from the Duchy of Cornwall. So no, WE the British public do NOT not keep them in luxury that they have, as you put it, come to expect! As for photos of Prince George, I think that is for his parents to decide, he is their child and not our property. I am incidentally a great supporter of our Royal Family particularly the immediate members - yes even the P of Wales!

We've seen photos of him before, overthehill...